Ex Parte Tajbakhsh

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 27, 2014

12177448 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 27, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte FARIBORZ TAJBAKHSH
____________

Appeal 2012-004482
Application 12/177,448
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, JILL D. HILL, and
BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges.

STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Fariborz Tajbakhsh (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from
the Examiner’s final decision rejecting, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), claims 1–
4, 6–17, 22–37, 42–45, 47, and 48 as unpatentable over Case (US 5,630,566,
issued May 20, 1997), Cooper (US 4,880,270, issued Nov. 14, 1989), and
Siff (US 2,625,986, issued Jan. 20, 1953) and claim 5 as unpatentable over
Case, Cooper, Siff, and Hamlin (US 6,722,673 B1, issued Apr. 20, 2004).

1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Fariborz
Tajbakhsh. App. Br. 4.

Appeal 2012-004482
Application 12/177,448
2

Claims 18–21 and 38–41 have been withdrawn and claim 46 has been
canceled. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

INVENTION
Appellant’s invention relates “to a workstation with a universal
coupling mechanism adapted to securely couple to a plurality of different
types of chairs.” Spec. 1, para. 1.
Claims 1, 27, 47, and 48 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of
the claimed invention and reads as follows:
1. A workstation, comprising:
a base including a universal coupling mechanism adapted
to securely couple to a plurality of different types of chairs;
a plurality of posts extending substantially vertical from,
and securely coupled to, said base; and
one or more supporting members coupled to said posts,
wherein each supporting member is adapted to support a user
article via a support surface configured to complementarily abut
against said user article.

ANALYSIS
Claim 1
Appellant argues that Case fails to disclose “one or more supporting
members,” as called for by independent claim 1. App. Br. 12. According to
Appellant, “[m]ouse pad (266) is not part of the overall integral structure of
arm (260)” (see id. at 13) and “[p]aper support means (244) is not a support
surface as asserted by the Examiner” (see id. at 14).
Appeal 2012-004482
Application 12/177,448
3

We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments because claim 1 does
not require that the claimed “supporting member” be “integral” with arm
260, as Appellant argues, but merely that it be “coupled to said posts.”
Limitations not appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon for
patentability. In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982). Because
Case’s mouse pad is “coupled” (attached) to central post 212, we agree with
the Examiner’s finding that mouse pad 266 of Case constitutes a “one or
more supporting members,” as called for by independent claim 1. See Ans.
7; see also Case, Fig. 3
We further agree with the Examiner that the paper support means of
Case likewise constitutes “one or more supporting members,” as called for
by independent claim 1. See Ans. 7. Although we appreciate Appellant’s
position that Case uses the reference number “244” to refer to both paper
support means and clip elements that secure a paper/book to the paper
support (see App. Br. 14), we note that Case specifically discloses that the
clips are “nested about the perimeter of the paper support means 244.” See
Case, col. 9, ll. 9–11 (italics added). Moreover, Case specifically discloses a
paper support means that permits “a paper or book to be secured . . . [to]
permit the user to easily type draft material.” See id. at ll. 6–9. As such, a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have readily recognized that in order
to be able to support a paper about its perimeter to draft material thereon, the
paper support means 244 provides for “a support surface configured to
complementarily abut against” the paper (user article), as called for by
independent claim 1.
Appellant further argues that it would not have been obvious to
combine the teachings of Case and Cooper because Cooper’s frame is
Appeal 2012-004482
Application 12/177,448
4

rectangular and brackets 70, 104 are not configured for rotational and lateral
movement around carriage 14. See App. Br. 14–15.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument, because obviousness
does not require that all of the features of the secondary reference be bodily
incorporated into the primary reference. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425
(CCPA 1981). In this case, the Examiner is not proposing to use the
particular construction and functionality of Cooper’s carriage 14 and
brackets 74, 104. Rather, the Examiner is proposing to provide an additional
central post 212, as taught by Cooper’s frame members 14a, 14b, to Case’s
system “in order to increase the overall load support of the posts.” See Ans.
6; see also Case, Fig. 3.
Appellant also argues that Siff is non-analogous art because Siff is
directed to an individual table and not to a computer workstation. App. Br.
15–16. To determine what is analogous prior art for the purpose of
analyzing the obviousness of the subject matter at issue, any need or
problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of the invention and
addressed by the patent or application at issue can provide a reason for
combining the elements in the manner claimed. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex
Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007). Thus, a reference in a field different from
that of applicant’s endeavor may be reasonably pertinent if, because of the
matter with which it deals, it would have logically commended itself to an
inventor’s attention in considering his or her invention as a whole. In re
ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379–80 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
In this case, an inventor seeking to provide portability to a workstation and
chair combination would look to find a manner of coupling the desk and
chair so they could be moved together. See Spec. 2, para. 4 and Spec. 3,
para. 10. The Examiner correctly finds that Siff discloses coupling
Appeal 2012-004482
Application 12/177,448
5

mechanism 18 adapted to couple table 11 to leg 19 of chair 10. See Ans. 5;
see also Siff, Fig. 1. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
considered Siff’s coupling mechanism because it would allow the
workstation of Case and Cooper to be moved together with a user’s chair.
Accordingly, Appellant has not persuaded us that Siff is non-analogous art.
In conclusion, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of
independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Case,
Cooper, and Siff.

Claims 4, 7, 8, and 27
Appellant argues that, “Case does not disclose the element of a
supporting member to support a user article that moves laterally and
rotationally about a vertical axis.” App. Br. 18 (underlining omitted).
According to Appellant, movement of arms 18, 28 of Case around joints 21,
31 is around a horizontal axis and not a vertical axis, as called for by
independent claim 27 and each of dependent claims 4, 7, and 8. Id. at 19.
Attorney argument that the motion of Case’s arms 18, 28 is limited to
movement about a horizontal axis cannot take the place of evidence in the
record. Estee Lauder, Inc. v. L’Oreal, S.A., 129 F.3d 588, 595 (Fed. Cir.
1997). If Case’s arms 18, 28 were not capable of moving about a vertical
axis, as Appellant contends, then the lateral positioning of Case’s keyboard
26 and computer screen 36 would be severely limited. Such a limited
interpretation would contradict Case’s explicit teaching of increased
adjustability that permits use from a bed, chair, or standing.2 See Case,

2 “The articulated arms include pivot and rotation means which permit
the arms to be moved and adjusted to most conceivable positions.” See
Case, col. 2, ll. 34–37 (emphasis added).
Appeal 2012-004482
Application 12/177,448
6

Abstract. Moreover, we note that arms 18, 28 of Case move laterally and
rotationally about a vertical axis, namely, central vertical post 12, via
connection elements 20, 30. See Case, col. 4, ll. 14–17 and Fig. 1.
Lastly, we are not persuaded that, “Case teaches away from using a
supporting member that laterally and rotationally moves about a vertical
axis.” App. Br. 20 (underlining omitted). Appellant does not point to any
passage in Case that “criticize[s], discredit[s] or otherwise discourage[s]”
lateral and rotational motion of arms 18, 28 about a vertical axis. See In re
Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
As such, for the foregoing reasons, we also sustain the rejection of
claims 4, 7, 8, and 27 over the combined teachings of Case, Cooper, and
Siff.

Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 9–17, 22–26, 28–37, 42–45, and 47
Appellant relies on the arguments presented supra. App. Br. 17 and
21–23. Accordingly, for the reasons expressed above, we likewise sustain
the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 2, 3, 6, 9–17, 22–26, 28–
37, 42–45, and 47 as unpatentable over Case, Cooper, and Siff and of claim
5 as unpatentable over Case, Cooper, Siff, and Hamlin.

Claim 48
Appellant argues that the Examiner has not addressed the limitation of
a “chair platform adapted to support a chair.” App. Br. 23.
We agree. The Examiner’s statement “that it is clear from the claimed
rejection and from the prior art of record that the limitations therein were
considered and found not distinguishable from the prior art of record” (see
Ans. 8) is unavailing. The Examiner does not adequately explain how the
Appeal 2012-004482
Application 12/177,448
7

combined teachings of Case, Cooper, and Siff disclose a “chair platform
adapted to support a chair.” Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of
independent claim 48 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Case,
Cooper, and Siff.

SUMMARY
We affirm the Examiner’s decision as to claims 1–17, 22–37, 42–45,
and 47 and reverse as to claim 48.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

hh